HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 Accept Local Roadway Safety Plan 600-20
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2021
PREPARED BY: Randy Bowman, Deputy Director of Public Works
REQUEST: Accept the Local Roadway Safety Plan (Project No. 600-20).
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, accept the Local Roadway Safety Plan dated May 2021.
Strategic Plan
The Local Roadway Safety Plan furthers the Transportation Mini-Vision identified in the City’s
Strategic Plan:
• By 2033, each resident and visitor will have safe, convenient and efficient
transportation options.
Background
Caltrans announced a Call for Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Applications on October
8, 2019. The City submitted its LRSP Application to Caltrans on December 5, 2019. The City
received notice on January 2, 2020 the application was accepted and state funding allocation
of $72,000 was approved. The City committed to a local match of $8,000 for a total budget
of $80,000 to conduct the LRSP.
At its meeting on February 27, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-20
approving Master Agreement No. 00557S between the State of California and the City of
Palm Desert, and Resolution No. 2020-21 approving Program Supplement Agreement No.
T76 to the Master Agreement for the Local Roadway Safety Plan Project (Project No. 600-
20).
On June 11, 2020, the City Council awarded Contract No. C40050 to Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. of Indian Wells, California in the amount of $79,962.83 for Professional
Engineering for the Local Roadway Safety Plan. The consultant commenced the study on
July 29, 2020.
The City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide
further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include
type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash
history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations
to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The
analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities
to: 1) identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2)
June 24, 2021 -Staff Report
Accept Local Roadway Safety Plan
Page 2 of 2
improve safety at specific high-crash locations , and 3) develop safety measures using the
five E's of safety : Engineering , Enforcement , Education , Emergency Services , and Emerging
Technologies to encourage safer driver behavior and better roadway safety .
As part of the LRSP, local stakeholders were included in the process to ensure the local
perspective was kept at the forefront of this planning effort . In addition to the Project Team
which included City Staff from the Public Works Department , a stakeholder group was
organized. This group consisted of members from other City Departments (Planning), the City
Council Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Sub-Committee , Riverside County Sheriff
Department, Sunline Transit Agency , Riverside County Public Health Department, Desert
Sands Unified School District , and local advocates from the Friends of CV Link and Desert
Bicycle Club .
The stakeholder group met on January 21, 2021 and on April 27 , 2021 to provide input as the
study was conducted . The City also provided for input the draft study to neighboring
jurisdictions of County of Riverside, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG),
Rancho Mirage , La Quinta , and Indian Wells . In addition, City staff briefed the ATP
Subcommittee on the project status three times between November 2020 and April 2021.
The LRSP provides Palm Desert with a look-ahead for safety improvements that can be
applied systemically and programmed through the Capital Improvement Plan. Additionally,
this information will be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities
to implement these safety improvements .
Beginning in 2022 , Caltrans will require a community to have a LRSP to be eligible to apply
for federal HSIP funds . Staff recommends the City Council accepts the LRSP .
Fiscal Analysis
The LRSP was included in the City 's CIP list for Fiscal Year 2020/2021 under Measure A
Funds . The awarded $72 ,000 grant reimbursement will be made back to Measure A Funds
following acceptance of the LRSP .
LEGAL REVIEW
N/A
Robert W . Hargreaves
Cit Attorne
DEPT . REVIEW
.Jlncfy :Firestine
Andy Firestine
Assistant Cit Mana er
L. Todd Hileman , City Manager:
Attachments : Local Roadway Safety Plan
FINANCIAL
REVIEW
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER
.Jlncfy :Firestine
Andy Firestine
Assistant Cit Mana er
RECEJVED ______ OTHER _____ _
~~aQ'p{oowl{~"'4<l /<d/lf
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: NO Y\~
VERIFIED BY:fJ 5/5r-£
Original on File with City Clerk's Office
1
City of Palm Desert
Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)
May 2021
Prepared By:
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
2 2
Executive Summary
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further
safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash,
certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP
analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash
locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history
throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to: 1) identify factors in the
transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2) improve safety at specific
high-crash locations, and 3) develop safety measures using the five E’s of safety: Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies to encourage safer
driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
Palm Desert has been successful at taking steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the
City. This is supported by their California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) rankings identifying them
in the top 25% tier for safety as compared to peer cities in most categories. The City continues
these safety efforts in this LRSP by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic
recommendations that can be implemented to enhance safety. This LRSP analyzes the most
recent range of crash data (January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019) and roadway improvements
to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.
During the LRSP process, the City identified a vision and outlined goals to achieve it . The vision
is to enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury
related crashes. The goals were identified as:
• Identify areas with a high risk for collisions.
• Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.
• Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid - and long-term.
• Define safety projects for HSIP and other program funding consideration.
Palm Desert’s collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions
either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations that have more active
collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most
likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historic collision data, collision
risk factors for the entire network were derived. The outcomes informed the identification and
prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain
roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with
active transportation users.
Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the
planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash
analysis. Where these areas aligned, or major challenges were observed, the following
emphasis areas were developed:
1. Pedestrians & Bicyclists (Vulnerable Road Users)
2. Signal Improvements
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
3 3
3. Aggressive Driving
4. Aging Drivers (65+)
The LRSP identified countermeasures for both infrastructure and non- infrastructure
impro vements. The report then applies Crash Modification Factor’s (CMFs), which are used to
estimate the safety effects of safety improvements to compare and prioritize the improvements.
This provides a planning level cost/benefit estimate that the City can use to prioritize
improvements.
Systemic recommendations were made city-wide as well as for 10 case study locations. The
case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection designs
throughout the City.
These recommendations provide Palm Desert with a look-ahead for safety improvements that
can be applied systemically. Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for
grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements.
An evaluation and implementation plan were created that identifies actionable items that will
help the City achieve the goals and vision set out in this report. This section laid out next steps
for the City to continue to capitalize on the analysis and information provided in this report. It
was recommended that the City Council formally adopt this plan, and to update the plan once
every five years.
Through the safety analysis performed in this document, the City has applied for and received
funding from HSIP Cycle 10 in the amount of $2,159,800. The approved funding is dedicated to
transportation improvements Citywide including enhancements to crosswalk visibility,
installation of retroreflective backplates on traffic signal heads, and installation of pedestrian
countdown signals at key pedestrian crossings.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
4 4
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 6
2 VISION AND GOALS ................................................................................................. 7
3 PROCESS .................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Guiding Manuals........................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Analysis Techniques ................................................................................................ 10
4 SAFETY PARTNERS...............................................................................................13
4.1 Partnering with Neighboring Jurisdictions ................................................................. 13
4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #1 ........................................................................................... 13
4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2 ........................................................................................... 13
5 EXISTING EFFORTS ...............................................................................................14
6 DATA SUMMARY .....................................................................................................15
6.1 Roadway Network ................................................................................................... 15
6.2 Intersections ............................................................................................................ 15
6.3 Count Data .............................................................................................................. 15
6.4 Crash Data .............................................................................................................. 15
7 CRASH SAFETY TRENDS.....................................................................................19
7.1 All Crashes .............................................................................................................. 19
7.2 Fatalities.................................................................................................................. 20
7.3 Injury Levels ............................................................................................................ 20
7.4 Cause of Crash ....................................................................................................... 21
7.5 Vulnerable Users ..................................................................................................... 21
7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles................................................................ 23
7.7 Behavioral ............................................................................................................... 23
7.8 Statewide Comparison ............................................................................................. 23
8 EMPHASIS AREAS ..................................................................................................25
9 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................28
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements .................................................................................... 28
9.2 Non -Infrastructure Improvements ............................................................................. 29
9.3 General City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox ............................................................ 51
10 EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION ...............................................................56
10.1 Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 56
10.2 Implementation ........................................................................................................ 56
10.3 Funding ................................................................................................................... 56
10.4 Next Steps............................................................................................................... 59
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
5 5
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula .................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: Functional Classification (CRS) and Intersection Type as of 2020 ............................ 16
Figure 3: All Crashes and Fatalities (2015-2019) .................................................................... 17
Figure 4: Density of all Crashes at Intersections and Segments (2015-2019) .......................... 18
Figure 5: Crash Type by Year (2015-2019) ............................................................................ 19
Figure 6: Crashes by Injury Levels (2015-2019) ..................................................................... 20
Figure 7: Cause of Crashes (2015-2019) ............................................................................... 21
Figure 8: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2015-2019) .......................................................... 22
Table of Tables
Table 1: Fatal Crashes Categorized by Modes Involved (2015-2019)...................................... 20
Table 2: Comparison of Statewide and Palm Desert Crashes (2015-2018) ............................. 23
Table 3: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Palm Desert................ 29
Table 4: City-wide Recommended Safety Projects (Countermeasure Toolbox) ....................... 52
Table 5: Non-Engineering 5E Safety Strategy Countermeasures ............................................ 54
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
6 6
1 Introduction
Palm Desert is a central community of the Coachella Valley due to its retail, commercial, and
cultural vibrancy. Similar to the surrounding desert communities, Palm Desert has a stable
population of around 53,000 residents with an additional 32,000 seasonal residents. This
change, along with general tourists and festival attendees creates layers of tension and
complexity for the transportation network.
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further
safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash,
certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP
analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash
locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history
throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to: 1) identify factors in the
transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2) improve safety at specific
high-crash locations, and 3) develop safety measures using the f ive E’s of safety: Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies to encourage safer
driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
The process and analysis performed for the City’s LRSP including initial vision and goals for the
LRSP development, crash history analysis, and emphasis areas is included in this Plan. The
information compiled will provide a foundation for decision making and prioritization for safety
countermeasures and projects that enhance safety for all modes.
Palm Desert has been successful at taking steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the
City. This is supported by their California Office of Traffic Safety rankings identifying them in the
top 25% tier for safety as compared to peer cities in most categories. The City continues these
safe ty efforts in this LRSP by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic recommendations that
can be implemented to enhance safety. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash
data (January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019) and roadway improvements to assess historic
trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Create a g reater awareness of road safety and risks
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
• Develop lasting partnerships
• Support for grant/funding applications, and
• Help prioritize investments in traffic safety.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
7 7
2 Vision and Goals
The Palm Desert LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure
programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to
analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclist, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes,
influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of
safety countermeasures. This effort is intended to use historical data to identify trends and
develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for
proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction
and response to crashes as they occur.
LRSPs have been effective across the country as part of the effort to reduce fatal and severe-
injury crashes because they provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly
address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. Following discussions with
Palm Desert staff and a review of existing plans and policies for the area, the following Vision,
Goals , and Objectives have been established for this project.
VISION: To enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and
serious injury related crashes.
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for collision.
Objectives:
• Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation.
• Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians
and bicyclists).
Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic
process.
Objectives:
• Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for collisions
based on present characteristics closely associated with severe collisions.
• Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that
can be improved upon.
Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid - and long -term.
Objectives:
• Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies).
• Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied county-wide.
Goal #4: Define safety projects for future HSIP and other program funding consideration.
Objectives:
• Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth-coming
cycles to apply f or funding.
• Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies.
• Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP funding consideration.1
• Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the
Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan.
1 The City applied for and received funding from HSIP Cycle 10 in the amount of $2,159,800.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
8 8
3 Process
Providing safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors is a
primary goal for the City and their safety partners. The City will continue their collaboration with
their safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community through the
development of the LRSP and its implementation.
Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans)
level. Both of these organizations have developed a general framework of data and
recommendations to be included in an LRSP.
FHWA encourages:
• The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing an
LRSP.
• Review crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern.
• Establish goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot
locations, systemically, and comprehensively.
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
• Estab lish leadership
• Analyze the safety data
• Determine emphasis areas
• Identify strategies
• Prioritize and incorporate strategies
• Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary
vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed
emphasis areas. The development of the LRSP recommendations considers the five E's of
traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its
process.
3.1 Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Palm
Desert at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will
most likely benefit from safety enhancements will be identified. Using historic crash data, crash
risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes will inform the identification and
prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain
roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes with
active transportation users.
This process uses the latest National and State best practices for statistical roadway analysis
described as follows.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
9 9
3.1.1 Local Roads Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5,
April 2020) purpose is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying
and analyzing safety issues, while preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A
proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through
either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.2
According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering
California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.”
To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for funding, the analysis leading to
countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be
considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of
locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably
prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and
qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that considers both crash frequency and
crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and
severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the
potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field
visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway
context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and
systematic level.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).
These factors are the peer reviewed product of before and after research that quantifies the
expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from a given countermeasure. If more
than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply
CMFs appropriately.
3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
“The AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods
for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations.”3 This four-part
manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway
Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.
Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the Network Screening process. The Network
Screening Process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network and identify/rank
locations that (based on the implementation of a countermeasure) are most likely to least likely
to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:4
2 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5.
3 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C.,
http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx
4 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
10 10
1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening
analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures
and the screening method that can be applied.
2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or
facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify
groupings of similar sites or facilities.
3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available
to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the
performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and
analytical tools available.
4. Select Screening Method: There are three principle screening methods described in
this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has
advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation
should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening
and analysis and evaluate the results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high
risk locations based on overall crash histories. In addition to identifying the total number of
crashes, this study uses a method referred to as Critical Crash Rate to analyze the data.
3.2 Analysis Techniques
3.2.1 Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
• Number of Crash es
• Critical Crash Rate (HSM Ch. 4)
• Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4)
• Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and
intersections that have similar characteristics. For this study, intersections were grouped by their
control type (Signalized, Unsignalized, Roundabout) and segments by their roadway category
(Arterial, Collector, Minor Collector, Local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each sub-
population. The population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific
location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub-population s were also used to
determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific
crash types are seen.
The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of
crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had
more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type
factors were 1) crash injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property
damage only), 2) crash type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned,
bicycle, pedestrian, other), 3) environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and 4) driver behavior
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
11 11
(impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving). With these additional factors, the locations were
further analyzed and assigned a new rank.
From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based
on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area of the City of Palm
Desert to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety
opportunities for toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety toolbox with
mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the county. Ten
locations will ultimately be selected for mitigation analysis.
3.2.2 Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis
Reviewing the number of collisions at a location is a good way to understand the cost to society
incurred at the local level but does not give a complete indication of the level of risk for those
who use that intersection or roadway segment on a daily basis. The Highway Safety Manual
describes the Critical Crash Rate method, which provides a statistical review of locations to
determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first
step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that
location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.
The Critical Crash Rate compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at
a particular location based on facility type and volume using a locally calculated average crash
rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed. Based on traffic
volumes and a weighted citywide crash rate for each facility type, a critical crash rate threshold
is established at the 95% confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that
are unlikely to be random. The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its
traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities.
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Data Needs
CCR can be calculated using:
• Daily entering volume for intersections, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for roadway
segments,
• Intersection control types to separate them into like populations,
• Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations,
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
12 12
• Collision records in GIS or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures.
Strengths
• Reduces low volume exaggeration
• Considers variance
• Establishes comparison threshold
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
13 13
4 Safety Partners
As part of the LRSP, local stakeholders were included in the process to ensure the local
perspective was kept at the forefront of this planning effort. In addition to the Project Team
which included City Staff from the Public Works Department, a stakeholder group was
organized. This group consisted of members from other City Departments (Planning), the City
Council Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Sub-Committee, Riverside County Sheriff
Department, Sunline Transit Agency, Riverside County Public Health Department, Desert Sands
Unified School District, and local advocates from the Friends of CV Link and Desert Bicycle
Club.
These leaders in the City and community were called together to offer insight on the safety
issues present in the city’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety
analysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas.
The summary of the stakeholder meeting(s) are outlined below.
4.1 Partnering with Neighboring Jurisdictions
Wor king with neighboring communities is integral to effective implementation of a Local Road
Safety Plan. Palm Desert’s nearby jurisdictions of County of Riverside, Coachella Valley
Association of Governments (CVAG), Rancho Mirage, La Quinta, and Indian Wells, were
considered as safety partners in the development and implementation of this plan. The City
requested feedback on the plan from neighboring jurisdictions before the plan was finalized and
implemented.
4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #1
The first stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually using the Zoom platform on January 21,
2021. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of
the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study.
In addition to the overview, Stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at
10 “case study” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash
analysis process. Potential countermeasures were recommended and discussed. Additionally,
potential emphasis/challenge areas were proposed during the meeting to include vulnerable
users (pedestrians and bicyclists), aging drivers, and speeders.
Stakeholder feedback regarding the plan and recommendations were reviewed and
incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP. Most of the feedback
received expressed a strong desire to prioritize bicycle safety throughout the City.
4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2
The Second Stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually as well on April 27,2021 using the
Zoom platform. During the meeting, stakeholders were provided with a recap of the project and
the previous meeting. A presentation of the draft recommendations from the LRSP was
discussed and additional feedback regarding countermeasures, funding, and general
recommendations took place. This information was processed and incorporated into the LRSP.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
14 14
5 Existing Efforts
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going
within the City of Palm Desert were compiled at the start of the LRSP process in order to gain
perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-
level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified
to inform decision making in this LRSP. Information reviewed included the following:
• Palm Desert General Plan (2016 – Palm Desert): A long-range plan that incorporates
elements such as a future circulation plan, proposed bicycle and golf network, and
discussion of public parking.
• Envision Palm Desert (2013 – Palm Desert): A strategic plan with discusses priorities
for walkable neighborhoods, multimodal improvements, and revitalization of the Hwy 111
corridor.
• Interstate 10/Portola Ave (2018 – Palm Desert/Caltrans/County/CVAG): A proposed
project that would continue Portola Avenue in a northwest direction from Dinah Shore
Drive to the realigned Varner Road, including a new bridge structure over I-10 and the
Union Pacific Railroad.
• San Pablo Avenue (2018 – Palm Desert): A corridor improvements plan for San Pablo
Avenue comprised of two phases from Highway 111 to Magnesia Falls.
• Engineering and Traffic Surveys (2020 – Palm Desert): Standard City study which
evaluates and recommends changes to speed limits at certain locations within the City.
• CV Link (2020 – Palm Desert/CVAG): A corridor improvements plan that identifies
bicycle and NEV facilities throughout the Coachella Valley.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
15 15
6 Data Summary
As a data driven process, utilizing the most recent and accurate data is crucial. The following
section describes the data inputs used for the analysis process of this LRSP.
6.1 Roadway Network
The crash analysis is built upon the existing roadway network. The City’s Proposed Circulation
Network from the adopted 2016 General Plan was used at the base network. Given the
additional nomenclature used to identify specific elements, this project favored using the
Caltrans California Road System (CRS) nomenclature in order to focus on the number of lanes
with each designation. A comparison of the corridors was used to identify the reasonable
counterpart. Figure 2 illustrates Palm Desert’s roadway network categorized using Caltrans’
Classification System. This classification assigned to each corridor roadway segment as either
an Arterial, Collector, Min or Collector, or Local road is used in the analysis process. Ultimately,
corridors will be compared to roadway segments with similar designations.
6.2 Intersections
The crash analysis requires each intersection be classified by type: Signalized , Unsignalized , or
Roundabout. The safety analysis compares intersection safety performance to locations with
similar control types. This information is also displayed in Figure 2.
6.3 Count Data
Vehicular count data is used as part of the analysis process to evaluate the impact of traffic and
understand the natural hierarchy of the roadway network. Count data utilized for this project was
pulled from recent traffic counts performed by TJKM Transportation Consultants and IDAX Data
Solutions for the city of Palm Desert where volumes were collected at 76 locations in February of
2020. For locations without volume or count data, count data was used to create an average ADT for each classification type.
6.4 Crash Data
Crash data was collected from Crossroads Software for the period from January 1, 2015
through December 31, 2019 in order to have a complete set of crash data for analysis. We
utilize five-years of data instead of the standard three to provide more history to evaluate trends
or patterns. Analysis of the raw crash data is the first step in understanding the specific and
systemic challenges faced throughout the City. Analyzing the five years of data provided insight
on the following crash trends and patterns. The locations of fatal and severe injury crashes are
displayed in Figure 3.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
16 16
Figure 2: Functional Classification (CRS) and Intersection Type as of 2020
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
17 17
Figure 3: All Crashes and Fatalities (2015-2019)
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
18 18
Figure 4: Density of all Crashes at Intersections and Segments (2015-2019)
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
19 19
7 Crash Safety Trends
The following section breaks down the crash data for the period from January 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2019 by a variety of input factors and user types. This information will be used to
highlight areas of concern for the City.
7.1 All Crashes
This report utilized crash data for a five -year period to provide a better understanding of trends
and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on City streets. New data is added to
the system in an ongoing basis which means that each time the City updates the analysis, a full
5-year draw from the database, rather than just adding records from the last query should be
standard practice. Data used for this report were extracted from Crossroads Software analytics
on August 5, 2020 and was current as of that date. Crash data from January 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2019 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during
this time there were 2,571 crashes recorded within Palm Desert. LRSP requirements include the
most recent three years of finalized crash data which would include 2016-2018.
During this time, the most common occurring crash types were Rear-ends (38%) and
Broadsides (27%). The total number of crashes have been trending downward since 2016, with
a significant 5% drop from 2016 to 2017.
Figure 5: Crash Type by Year (2015-2019)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Vehicle - Pedestrian
Sideswipe
Rear-End
Overturned
Other
Not Stated
Hit Object
Head-On
Broadside
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
20 20
7.2 Fatal ities
During the study period, four (4) fatal crashes occurred, as seen in Figure 3. One of the bicycle
fatal crashes occurred at night in an area without streetlights. The remaining three took place
during daytime.
Table 1: Fatal Crashes Categorized by Modes Involved (2015-2019)
Involved With # of Fatal Crashes
Vehicle 1
Bicycle 2
Vehicle-Pedestrian 1
7.3 Injury Levels
Two -thirds (66%) of the crashes reported during the time-period resulted in property damage
only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled less than 3% of all crashes.
Figure 6: Crashes by Injury Levels (2015-2019)
<1%2%
22%
10%
66%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Complaint of Pain
Other Visible Injury
Property Damage Only
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
21 21
7.4 Cause of Crash
The highest cause of crash in Palm Desert is unsafe speed at 29%, followed by improper
turning at 17% and auto right-of -way violation at 14%. Issues with traffic signals and signs also
had a substantial impact on the City, comprising 9% of the crashes. This means that the officer
reporting the crash indicated that due to some failure (e.g. signal outages, visibility of signage,
poor maintenance, etc.) led to the crash.
Figure 7: Cause of Crashes (2015-2019)
7.5 Vulnerable Users
7.5.1 Pedestrians
53 pedestrian involved crashes occurred during the study period, resulting in one fatal crash,
eight severe injury, and 42 with some form of reported injury or pain. 47% of the crashes
occurred at night, and about half of these were in areas without streetlights or when they were
not functioning (did not turn on or light had burned out). More than half of these crashes
occurred while the pedestrian was crossing in the crosswalk.
7.5.2 Bicycle
During the study period, 58 crashes involving bicycles were reported. Of these, two were fatal,
and 7 resulted in severe injuries. Only one fatal and one severe injury crash occurred at night.
86% of the crashes occurred during daylight. Most of these crashes were attributed to
automobile right-of -way violations.
29%
17%
14%
9%
7%
7%
4%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
4%
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Auto R/W Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Other Hazardous Movement
Following Too Closely
Other Than Driver
Other Improper Driving
Driving Under Influence
Pedestrian Violation
Improper Passing
Ped R/W Violation
Wrong Side of Road
Impeding Traffic
Other
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
22 22
Figure 8: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2015-2019)
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
23 23
7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles
• Only six percent of crashes (148) occurred at night without streetlights or during
dusk/dawn. Many of these crashes still occurred at or near intersections.
• Nine percent of crashes (236) involved hit objects. Although significant in number, there
are no discernable patterns to these crashes.
• Twenty-four percent of “party at fault” was drivers age 65 and older. Looking at the expanded range of the “party at fault” for age 55 and older, this group accounts for almost
38% of crashes.
• Nineteen percent of the “party at fault” was attributed to those between 16 and 25 years
old.
7.7 Behavioral
7.7.1 Driving Under the Influence
Twenty-six crashes, less than 1% of all crashes, were reported as the driver being under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. Six of which took place along Hwy 111. The two resulting in
severe injuries took place near the College of the Desert and the other near the Emerald Desert
Country Club.
7.7.2 Aggressive Driving
Thirty-two percent of the crashes were primarily caused by drivers traveling at unsafe speed or
following too closely. These types of crashes are located primarily on major arterials.
7.8 Statew ide Comparison
Due to the availability of data, a comparison of crash data to the State averages could only be
conducted for data from 2015-2018. These numbers may vary slightly from those
mentioned previously, due to the differences in the years of the study period. The
following are areas where Palm Desert’s crash rates are higher than those of the State.
Table 2: Comparison of Statewide and Palm Desert Crashes (2015-2018)
Challenge Area Statewide % Palm Desert %
Palm Desert has a Higher Percentage of Crashes
Aggressive Driving 33.3% 43.5%
Aging Drivers 13.1% 50%*
Bicyclists 7.5% 11.3%
Intersections 23.9% 40.3%
Palm Desert has a Lower Percentage of Crashes
Commercial Vehicles 6.5% 1.6%
Distracted Driving 4.7% 1.6%
Impaired Driving 23.8% 22.6%*
Lane Departure 42.1% 24.2%
Motorcyclists 21.8% 14.5%
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
24 24
Pedestrians 19.3% 16.1%
Young Drivers 12.3% 6.5%
*Due to difference in difference in years of the study period, these figures vary from
those presented in Sections 7.1-7.7
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
25 25
8 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Areas are places where the City of Palm Desert can strategically focus efforts to have
a large impact on transportation safety. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the Vision
and Goals developed at the onset of this planning process and comparing them with the trends
and patterns identified in the crash analysis. Where these areas aligned, or major challenges
were observed, Emphasis Areas and strategies were developed.
Emphasis A rea #1: P edestrians & Bicyclists (Vulnerable Road Users)
Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as a vulnerable user,
meaning they have the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. Pedestrian and
bicyclist activity are very high within the Coachella Valley and Palm Desert specifically.
According to the crash analysis, 96 percent of crashes involving pedestrians within the City
resulted in some form of injury or pain. Almost half of all the crashes occurred at night and while
the pedestrian was crossing in the crosswalk. The percentage of bicycle collisions as a total of
all collisions is almost 4% higher in Palm Desert than statewide. Lighting also has a large
impact on these crash types, considering Palm Desert is under a dark -sky ordinance.
Installing high-visibility crosswalks at intersections will call more driver attention to the presence
of pedestrians during both day and night. Systemically applying this enhancement to all
crosswalks in the City will proactively address areas that may not currently have high pedestrian
activity.
Implementing bicycle improvements, such as green bicycle striping in conflict zones or bicycle
boxes, can make the presence of bicyclists more apparent to drivers. Systemically applying
these enhancements to roadways will proactively address areas that may not currently have
high bicycle activity.
Goals for Emphasis Area #1:
• Applied for HSIP funding to install high visibility crosswalks at thirteen locations where
there were a number of pedestrian-involved crashes. The City received $247,200 for these
improvements in HSIP Cycle 10.
• Implement bicycle infrastructure improvements where there are high numbers of bicycle
crashes.
Strategies for Emphasis Area #1: Strategies to reduce the number of collisions with
pedestrians will involve engineering, education, and enforcement implementations. Engineering
implementations will mostly include continued implementation of active transportation projects in
the City’s CIP, and additional countermeasures identified earlier in this plan. Education
campaigns for rules of the road and safety education will be recommended at advocate and
educational levels. Enforcement to prevent collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists is also
encouraged. Strategies will aim to address these collisions at a systemic level. They will be
implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, CVAG , CHP, and other community
partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, ATP, STIP, and SB1 grant
programs.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
26 26
Emphasis A rea #2: S ignal I mprovements
Description: Visibility of signal heads can be impacted by lighting conditions in the desert (i.e.
early -morning or late evening when the sun is positioned behind the signals). The installation of
retroreflective backplates on signal heads has been shown to improve their visibility. Making a
citywide movement to install these on all signal heads will create a consistent environment for
drivers.
Additionally, the installation of pedestrian countdown signal heads, especially as compared to
standard walk/don’t walk signal heads, has been shown to enhance safety for pedestrians.
Understanding the allotted time to cross a street can help these individuals plan for their
movements.
Goal for Emphasis Area #2: Applied for HSIP funding to install retroreflective backplates and
pedestrian countdown signal heads at all signalized intersections (where not currently present).
The City received from HSIP Cycle 10 in the amount of $1,912,600 for these improvements.
Plan to complete these improvements by the end of 2023.
Strategies for Emphasis Area #2: Strategies to improve signalized intersections in the City will
involve identifying intersections where signal improvements are needed. The locations where
improvements are needed should be prioritized based on the crash history. These locations
should be incorporated into the City’s transportation plan and capital improvement plan.
Strategies should be implemented by the City, while partnering with CVAG, CHIP, neighboring
municipalities, and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include
HSIP, ATP, STIP, and SB1 grant programs.
Emphasis Area #3: Aggressive Driving
Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes several behaviors
including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. 31% of the collision in the
study period (2014-2018) were caused by aggressive driving behaviors. 45% of the collisions
caused by aggressive driving resulted in injury or fatality, as opposed to 34% of the collisions
not caused by aggressive driving behaviors.
Goal for Emphasis Area #3: The number of aggressive driving collisions declined by about
30% from 2015-2019. The City will aim to reduce aggressive driving collisions by 30% over the
next f ive years. The City will evaluate progress of the goal every two years and make any
necessary changes to implementation strategies.
Strategies for Emphasis Area #3: Strategies to address aggressive driving behaviors will
mainly focus on enforcement and education, with limited engineering implementations. These
strategies may include an educational campaign to target aggressive driving, increased
enforcement near aggressive driving hotspots, increased coordination with law enforcement and
other community organizations. These strategies will be implemented by the City, law
enforcement, and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include
HSIP, STIP, and SB1 grant programs.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
27 27
Emphasis Area #4 : Aging Drivers (65+)
Description: Collisions involving aging drivers, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes
instances where the driver of the motor vehicles is 65 years or older. During the period of 2014-
2018, 50% of the collisions in the City involved aging drivers, as compared to 13% statewide.
While Palm Desert has a relatively large aging population (36% vs 15% statewide), efforts can
be made to reduce collisions involving aging drivers.
Goal for Emphasis Area #4: From 2015-2019, collisions involving aging drivers decreased by
roughly 20%. The City will aim to reduce collisions involving aging drivers by 20% over the next
5 years. The City will evaluate progress of the goal every two years and make any necessary
changes to implementation strategies. In order to implement the strategies outlined below, the
City will aim to devise and execute a communication and outreach plan.
Strategies for Emphasis Area #4: Strategies to address aging driver behaviors will mainly
focus on education, encouragement, and enforcement. Strategies that have had success
nationally include driver refresher courses, implementing technology in aging drivers’ vehicles,
and education campaigns to target aging drivers with messages regarding road safety, common
mistakes, and challenges that aging drivers face. Strategies may also include increased
enforcement near hotspots of aging driver collisions and increased coordination with community
organizations. These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and local
community organizations such as The Joslyn Center. Funding sources for these strategies may
include HSIP, STIP, and SB1 grant programs.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
28 28
9 Recommendations
The following provide s more information on general identified issues, crash modification factors,
improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of Palm Desert, as well as for
specific project locations identified as part of this analysis.
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements
9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process
Part D of the HSM provides information on Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for roadway
segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to
estimate the safety effects of highway improvements and apply CMFs to compare and select
highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential
to reduce collisions. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to
increase collisions. The application of an appropriate CMF can influence the decision to
impleme nt a particular project, and the misapplication of CMFs can lead to misinformed
decisions. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:
1. Selection of an appropriate CMF,
2. Estimation of collisions without treatment,
3. Application of CMFs by type and severity, and
4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments
Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report
utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf) and the CMF
Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/).
Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis
and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a city-
wide level and are discussed in General City-Wide Safety Project Recommendations Section
9.3 of this Report.
9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the city-wide analysis, ten project case study locations were selected for further analysis
and recommendation. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed
to provide a case study to organize projects when applying for funding. These locations were
identified through the analysis process based on their collision histories, the observed crash
patterns, and their differing characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic
safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety
benefits.
A Safety Project Case Study was developed for these locations:
1. Segment: Monterey Ave (Dinah Shore Dr to City Limits)
2. Segment: Country Club Dr (Eastwood Ln to Harris Ln)
3. Signalized Intersection: Monterey Ave & Fred Waring Dr
4. Signalized Intersection: Monterey Ave & Dinah Shore Dr
5. Signalized Intersection: Highway 111 & San Luis Rey Ave
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
29 29
6. Signalized Intersection: Highway 111 & Plaza Way
7. Signalized Intersection: Highway 111 & San Pablo Ave
8. Unsignalized Intersection: Fred Waring Dr & Acacia Dr
9. Unsignalized Intersection: Highway 74 & Bursera Way
10. Unsignalized Intersection: Highway 111 & Larkspur Ln
Appendix A contains the Case Study pages which summarize conditions at each location, and
potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost
assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies
can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase
improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations
with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history. These
case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities.
9.2 Non-Infrastructure Improvements
Non-Infrastructure recommendations have also been proven to impact safety conditions of the
transportation network. These education and enforcement measure recommendations are
developed to target specific behavior types and populations. Based on a review of the existing
plans, policies, and programs within the City, the following topics have been reviewed to identify
areas where the City can implement or enhance safety efforts.
Table 3: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Palm Desert
Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for City of Palm Desert
Topic Initiatives
Status Implement or Enhance
Active Transportation
Coordinator Currently no defined role Designate member of City staff to
serve in this role
Safety or Active
Advisory Committee
City Council has created the ATP
subcommittee, which meets quarterly Continue ATP subcommittee meetings
Active Transportation
Safety Education
Program
Existing, resides with Police Department
Expand on existing programs in
schools; host safety events during
existing City functions
Safe Routes to School Considering applying for next cycle Perform needs assessment to
determine scope of funding application
Inventory/Mapping of
Active Transportation
Routes
Partially Complete database and provide to
residents through online portal
Traffic Calming Policies No ne currently
Perform needs assessment to
determine scope of traffic calming
policies needed; Consider policy to
reduce lane widths to slow traffic while
providing additional right-of-way for
other modes.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
50 50
Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for City of Palm Desert
Topic Initiatives
Status Implement or Enhance
Inventory of Pedestrian
Signs and Signals Partially Complete this GIS database and
maintain via regular or annual updates
Speed Surveys Last completed in 2020 Update every 5 years as required by
law
Citizen Feedback Online resident portal/app -
Institutional
Coordination
Coordinates with law enforcement and
adjacent jurisdictions -
School Engagement Yes
Work with existing programs to
increase safety courses, especially at
elementary schools for safe walking
and biking
Law
Enforcement/Emergency
Service Engagement
Yes
Continue current engagement and
identify opportunities for future
collaboration
Pedestrian Signal
Timing Partially Apply for funding to install LPI’s and
coordinate signal timing appropriately
Crosswalks Yes Apply for funding to upgrade
crosswalks to high-visibility design
Active Transportation
Volume Counting No Institute a program to count pedestrian
and bicycles on a bi -annual basis
Traffic Crash Monitoring Not formalized
Host monthly or bi-monthly meetings
with stakeholder group to review data
and discuss emerging data trends
Warrants for Stop Signs
and Signals Follows CA MUTCD -
Planning for Density and
Walkable Areas
Uses planning programs to encourage
infill development -
Complete Streets
No; Adhere to regional and state
complete streets policies for regional
projects
Adopt a policy for the City to adhere to
for local projects
Active Transportation
Master Plan
Only as a part of the General Plan;
Larger Coachella Valley ATP (2016)
Develop a standalone plan for the City
that integrates the CVAG plans with
local connections
Funding for Active
Transportation
City received $3.222 million for San
Pablo Ave Phase 2 project
Pur sue ATP and other funding sources
for eligible projects and programs
Transportation Demand
Management
(TDM)/Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT)
Reduction
City’s General Plan calls for reduction of
single-occupancy vehicles. City to
comply with SB 743 for VMT analysis.
City has embraced Riverside County
LOS & VMT guidelines.
Incorporate existing actions into formal
TDM or VMT reduction policy
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
51 51
9.3 General City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox
T his evaluation considered city-wide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely
provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Countermeasures for each of the 5E
Safety Strategies (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging
Technologies) were identified. These include both infrastructure recommendations, non-
infrastructure recommendations. Table 4 outlines the city-wide safety project recommendations,
which is also referred to as the “Countermeasure Toolbox”. Within the toolbox, the description of
the countermeasure along with its LRSM ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF) also known as Crash Modification Factor (CMF), are “multiplicative factors used to
estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a
specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)5.”
For each of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit/cost analysis was completed.
Applying the benefit/cost at the city-wide level was estimated assuming some randomness in
crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as whether there is a traffic signal, and the
type of crashes, were used at the city-wide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the
countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then factored out to a 20-year life -
cycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPCC) for the initial installation costs
and a per-year maintenance cost estimate. The cost shown in Table 4 should be considered
initial planning costs using 2020 dollars and not assumed final.
In addition to countermeasures from the LRSM which are included in Table 4, the following
engineering improvements are recommended for consideration by the City for implementation.
• Posting full time or part time “No Right Turn on Red” signs based on the frequency of
collisions. Potential use of blankout signs at signalized intersection should be considered
as they can be extended to part time No U Turn restrictions.
• Implementation of CAMUTCD compliant signal timing at all intersections which has been
shown in recent studies to help reduce pedestrian related collisions.
• Policy to regularly evaluate sight distance and visual clearance issues within the City. In
addition to built obstructions, landscaping has become an increasingly important issue
and is a factor in collisions.
• Restriping corridors to narrow travel and turn lanes widths, using the additional space to
stripe wider bicycle facilities.
• Installation of bike detection and bike call buttons at signalized intersections.
Table 5 describes additional recommendations for the remaining categories of traffic safety which
includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technology.
5 LRSM Version 1.5 (2020), Page 27
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
52
Table 4: City-wide Recommended Safety Projects (Countermeasure Toolbox)
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM ID CRF
INITIAL
INSTALLATION
COST ESTIMATE
PER YEAR
MAINTENANCE
COST
ESTIMATE
20-YEAR
COST
ESTIMATE
PER UNIT
ASSUMPTIONS
ENGINEERING
Install speed feedback
signage R26 30% $ 6,000 $ 500 $ 16,000 per sign
yearly costs include electricity,
cleaning, and general
maintenance
Install signal ahead
signage R22 15% $ 500 $ 50 $ 1,500 per sign replaced once every 10 years
Install lighting along
segment R01 35% $ 7,500 $ 200 $ 11,500 per light
fixture replaced once every 10
years; cleaned once per year
Install high-friction
pavement S11 55% $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 150,000 per approach
$33/sq yd, assumed 1,500 sq
yds per approach; replace every
10 years
Enhance crosswalk
visibility S20PB 15% $ 20,000 $ 3,333 $ 86,667
per
intersection replacement every 6 years
Install retroreflective
backplates S02 15% $ 10,000 $ 100 $ 12,000
per
intersection
replacing a few backplates over
the 20-year lifecycle
Install advanced dilemma
zone detection system S04 40% $ 30,000 $ 200 $ 34,000
per
intersection
yearly maintenance by signal
technician
Adjust timing and signal
synchronization S03 15% $ 1,000 $ 333 $ 7,667
per
intersection retiming every 3 years
Update signal heads to
meet current standards S02 15% $ 10,000 $ 100 $ 12,000
per
intersection
replacement of occasional
damaged bulbs/signal heads
Install ‘congestion ahead’
signage R22 15% $ 500 $ 50 $ 1,500 per sign replaced once every 10 years
Install leading pedestrian
interval (LPI) S21PB 60% $ 1,000 $ 333 $ 7,667
per
intersection retiming every 3 years
Install pedestrian deterrent S13PB 35% $ 100 $ 3 $ 160 per linear foot
yearly maintenance and
repainting
Straighten crosswalks to
reduce crossing distances S20PB 15% $ 20,000 $ 3,333 $ 86,667
per
intersection replacement every 6 years
53
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM ID CRF
INITIAL
INSTALLATION
COST ESTIMATE
PER YEAR
MAINTENANCE
COST
ESTIMATE
20-YEAR
COST
ESTIMATE
PER UNIT
ASSUMPTIONS
Install lane tracking
striping for LT movements S09 10% $ 5,000 $ 833 $ 21,667
per
intersection replacement every 6 years
Install bicycle-activated
call buttons S20PB 15% $ 20,000 $ 100 $ 22,000
per
intersection
maintenance per year for signal
tech maintenance
Restrict U-turns NS15 50% $ 500 $ 50 $ 1,500 per sign replaced once every 10 years
Install warning beacon at
intersections NS09 30% $ 2,000 $ 50 $ 3,000 per beacon regular yearly maintenance
Install green bicycle
striping in conflict zones R32PB 35% $ 10,000 $ 250 $ 15,000
per
intersection yearly cleaning
Signal warrant analysis:
install signal if warranted NS03 30% $ 257,500 $ 1,000 $ 277,500
per
intersection
signal warrant costs $7,500. per
year costs include timing,
electricity, replacements, etc.
Implement Caltrans sight
distance analyses into
design reviews - - - - Varies - -
54
Non-Engineering 5E Safety Strategy Countermeasures:
These recommended countermeasures were derived from the collision analysis and build on the actions identified in Section 9.2.
These relate to the additional Es of Traffic Safety outside of Engineering. This includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency
Services and Emerging Technologies.
Table 5: Non -Engineering 5E Safety Strategy Countermeasures
PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE
ENFORCEMENT
Establish visibility and enforcement program for
aggressive driving Local law enforcement, CHP CHP's Regulate Aggressive Driving and
Reduce Speed (RADARS) program
Continue school zone enforcement Local law enforcement, CHP, school districts, CVAG, SCAG Obtain grant funding for additional personnel in school zones
Increased crosswalk enforcement Local law enforcement, CHP, school
districts, CVAG, SCAG
Obtain grant funding for additional enforcement of drivers near pedestrian
crossings
EDUCATION
Campaign to target aggressive driving and DUIs Local law enforcement, CHP, California
Office of Traffic Safety
CHP's Regulate Aggressive Driving and
Reduce Speed (RADARS) program
Bicycle and pedestrian safety campaign Local law enforcement, CVAG, SCAG
SCAG's “Go Human” campaign;
“Ride With Traffic ” campaign
“Share the Road” Campaign Planned education events at CV Link
School zone pedestrian campaign School districts, local law enforcement, CVAG, SCAG
Local enforcement is out daily during regular
school period to establish visibility and enforcement;
SCAG's “Go Human” campaign
Explore safe routes to school education grants to
expand program
School districts, local law enforcement,
CVAG, SCAG
Safe Routes to School Program (funded by
Caltrans)
Coordinate safety education campaigns with CVAG CVAG, SCAG, local law enforcement
Coordination of safety education with new CVAG projects such as CV Link or CV Sync Roadway safety fairs at schools
Re-education for aging drivers
55
PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Continue to work on interdepartmental
communication between City staff and City police
department and fire department
Local law enforcement, fire department
Incorporating law enforcement/fire department
as stakeholders on transportation
improvement projects
Incorporate public health agencies and fire
departments as stakeholders in safety projects
Local public health agencies, fire
department
Adjust safety project development processes
to include public health and fire department feedback
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
Continue to use best practices for pedestrian crossings at high pedestrian traffic areas City Public Works, CVAG, Caltrans
Continuously update pedestrian crossing
design standards in accordance with latest best practices
Utilize new data sources to monitor traffic conditions
and inform County safety plans City Public Works, CVAG, Caltrans Utilization of data from forthcoming CVAG
Regional Traffic Management Center (RTMC)
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
56
10 Evaluation & Implementation
10.1 Evaluation
The success of the LRSP will be evaluated using the preliminary process outlined below. This
process will be useful to ensure proper implementation of goals and to determine when updates
are needed.
• Quarterly progress meetings will be conducted to track the implementation of the plan. In
addition, the success of the plan will be evaluated on an annual basis.
• An update to the plan should be considered after no more than five years.
• Continued monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways by law
enforcement.
• Maintain a list of focus areas where there are transportation safety concerns.
10.2 Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through several avenues including
development of projects, the establishment of new policies and programs, and
development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.
With regard to projects, the following identifies potential focus areas for the City in the near-to-
mid -term.
Near- & Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this report provide more of the systemic countermeasures that
can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, it is recommended that the City
concentrate its efforts on the emphasis areas:
1. Vulnerable Users
2. Signal Improvements
3. Aggressive Driving
4. Aging Drivers (65+)
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most
frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities
previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be
used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would
be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high
benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide collision rates), allowing projects to be developed
even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to
future collisions.
10.3 Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of
safety projects in Palm Desert. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
57 57
opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement
safety improvements throughout Palm Desert. The following is a high-level introduction into
some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply. In addition to the
funding sources mentioned below, the City should consider examining and allocating a portion
of its Measure A and other local funding sources to help fund safety improvements. The City
should also work with regional agencies such as CVAG, RCTC, and SCAG to identify and apply
for safety improvement funding.
10.3.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program housed under Fixing
America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum
for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be
used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid
highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and
other project types. Example safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guard rails
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• Marked crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash
reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The
applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of
California.
Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for
upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.
In 2020, the City applied for and received funding from HSIP Cycle 10 in the amount of
$2,159,800.
10.3.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013,
consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage
increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized
users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this
funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school)
• Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement)
This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the
spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
The City has already received $3.2 million in funding from ATP for its San Pablo Ave Phase 2
project.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
58 58
10.3.3 State Transportation Improvement Program
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides state and federal gas tax
money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs
every two years. The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate,
followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The
fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of
transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning
agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the
Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using Interregional Improvement
Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement
Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The STIP is then adopted
by the CTC.
10.3.4 California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood
streets, freeways and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward
transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.
California’s state -maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1
revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of
the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be
used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road
system, including:
• Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties and regional transportation agencies to build or
convert more bike paths, crosswalks and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in
funding for these projects through the Active Transportation Program (ATP).
• Local Planning Grants: $25 million
10.3.5 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety
education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash
data (such as the data anal yzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program
areas:
• Alcohol Impaired Driving
• Distracted Driving
• Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
• Motorcycle Safety
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
• Police Traffic Services
• Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
• Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
59 59
10.3.6 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program (SCP)
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local
planning tools. The SCP provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to
complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities
Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories:
• Integrated Land Use
o Sustainable Land Use Planning
o Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o Land Use & Transportation Integration
• Active Transportation
o Bicycle Planning
o Pedestrian Planning
o Safe Routes to School Plans
• Green Region
o Natural Resource Plans
o Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs
10.3.7 SB 821 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program)
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program is funded through a ¼ cent statewide sales tax
and provides funding for bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. The program is administered by
the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The Call for Projects occurs on a
biennial basis, with the next call occurring in April 2021. The following types of projects are
eligible for funding:
• Construction, including related engineering expenses, of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
or for bicycle safety education programs.
• Maintenance of bicycling trails, which are closed to motorized traffic.
• Maintenance and repairs of Class I off -street bicycle facilities only.
• Restriping Class II bicycle lanes.
• Facilities provided for the use of bicycles that serve the needs of commuting bicyclists,
including, but not limited to, new trails serving major transportation corridors, secure
bicycle parking at employment centers, park and ride lots, and transit terminals where other funds are available.
• Development of comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans (limitations apply). Plans
must emphasize bike/pedestrian facilities that support utilitarian bike/pedestrian travel
rather than solely recreational activities.
10.4 Next Steps
The City of Palm Desert has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation
safety improvements for years to come. The data-driven analysis process identified collision
types, related primary collision factors, and locations of many collisions. Based on this process,
Emphasis Areas were developed. These Emphasis Areas will guide corridor improvements,
education programs, and capital improvements for the City.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
60 60
Through the safety analysis performed in this document, the City has applied for and received
funding from HSIP Cycle 10 in the amount of $2,159,800. The approved funding is dedicated to
transportation improvements Citywide, including enhancements to crosswalk visibility,
installation of retroreflective backplates on traffic signal heads, and installation of pedestrian
countdown signals at key pedestrian crossings.
Using the analyzed data and outputs from this LRSP, the City has also completed, or plans to
complete, the following tasks:
• Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users
• Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as
improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network
• Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital
improvements to design a safer transportation network in Palm Desert.
• Begin designing safety improvements identified in the Case Study sheets contained in this
report.
T he City also plans to have the City Council formally approve and adopt the Local Road Safety
Plan (LRSP) in 2021. Based on current Caltrans guidelines, the City will plan to update the
LRSP in five years in 2026.
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
61 61
Appendix A: Case Study Sheets
Project Template: Location #1
Project Name: Monterey Ave:
Dinah Shore Dr to City Limits
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segment: Monterey Ave from Dinah Shore Dr to City Limits
Examples of Similar Intersections: Cook St (Gerald Ford Dr to City Limits); Washington St (Country Club Dr to City Limits)
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)44,233
Lighting No
Highest Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
Collision Data
Total Collisions 17
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 1
Top 3 Collision Types
(percentage)
Rear-End (88%)
Sideswipe (6%)
Broadside (6%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 5
Wet Surface Collisions 1
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
17 0 0
♦♦
NNDinah Shore DrSEGMENT
City LimitsAdditional Notes:
•Any lighting installed should be respective of City dark skies ordinance
•Bicyclists noted there is aggressive driving at this location
•There is confusion on which lane to be in for I-10 access. Configuration changed 7-8 years ago.
•The signal ahead signage should be activated when the signal is turning yellow or red.
•Caltrans needs to be involved in any changes on the bridge.
•Caltrans will need to revise the offset at the EB off ramp signal so that when it turns green for SB traffic on Monterey,
the traffic will arrive at the when the signal at Dinah Shore and Monterey is green.
•The southbound left turn lanes should be reconstructed so that they are much longer and this will require Caltrans
concurrence.
Monterey Ave
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendation
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
Dark
Install lighting
along segment
(sensitive to dark
skies ordinance)
Add
Segment
Lighting 0.65 (R01)$187,740 $60,000 $1,600 $89,200 2.10
All
Install signal ahead
signage
Install/
Upgrade
signs
with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory
or warning)
0.85 $496,980 $2,000 $400 $6,000 82.83
All
Install speed
feedback signage
Install
dynamic/
variable
speed
warning
signs
0.70 $993,960 $12,000 $1,000 $32,000 31.06
Project Template: Location #2
Project Name: Country Club Dr
Eastwood Ln to Harris Ln
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segment: Country Club Dr (Eastwood Ln to Harris Ln)
Examples of Similar Intersections: Hovley Ln E (Jasmine Ct to Corporate Way); Frank Sinatra Dr (Hollister Dr to Portola
Ave)
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)25,000
Lighting None
Highest Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
Collision Data
Total Collisions 5
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 1
Visible Injury - 1
Top 2 Collision Types
(percentage)
Rear End (80%)
Hit Object (20%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 1
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
5 0 0
♦♦
NNEastwood LnSEGMENT
Additional Notes:
•EB left turn lane at Harris Lane should longer or converted to a double left.
Country Club Dr
Harris Ln
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendation
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
All
Install signal ahead
signage
Install/
Upgrade
signs
with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory
or warning)
0.85 $1,423,320 $2,000 $200 $6,000 237.22
All
Install speed
feedback signage
Install
dynamic/
variable
speed
warning
signs
0.70 $2,846,640 $12,000 $1,000 $32,000 88.96
All
Install high-friction
pavement
Improve
pavement
friction (High
Friction
Surface
Treatments)
0.45 $5,218,840 $100,000 $10,000 $300,000 17.40
Project Template: Location #3 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name: Monterey Ave &
Fred Waring Dr
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Monterey Ave & Fred Waring Dr
Examples of Similar Intersections: Monterey Ave & Highway 111; Monterey Ave & Country Club
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 54,490
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signalized
Lighting All LED
Highest Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
Median None
Collision Data
Total Collisions 62
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 5
Top 3 Collision Types Rear-End (42%)
Broadside (26%)
Sideswipe (21%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 12
Wet Surface Collisions 2
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
61 1 0
♦♦
N
NN
Fred
Waring Dr
MontereyAveAdditional Notes:
•High collision activity likely due to proximity of college and Fred Waring Dr being used as alternative to Highway 111
•The left turn lanes on Fred Waring Drive are too short for peak hour traffic. They need to be made longer.
•This signal has not been coordinated with the adjacent signals on Monterey at Park View and at San Gorgonio. Synchronizing this
intersection with adjacent signals on Monterey will have a significant impact on the collisions. Park View can be synchronized as
soon as the construction work is completed and the intersection returned to normal operations.
•Check the sight distance for vehicles turning right on red and if it is restricted, restrict this movement when the signal indications
are red.
•Consider adding right turn overlap phasing for all approaches that have a separate right turn lane and currently do not have one.
Fred
Waring Dr
MontereyAve
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
Pedestrian
Enhance crosswalk
visibility
Install
pedestrian
crossing (SI)
0.85 (S20PB)$48,540 $20,000 $3,333 $86,667 0.56
All
Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting,
size, and
number
0.85 (S02)$1,409,040 $10,000 $100 $12,000 117.42
All
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection system
Provide
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection for
high speed
approaches
0.60 (S04)$3,757,400 $30,000 $200 $34,000 110.51
All
Adjust yellow/all-red
timing
Improve
signal timing
(coordination,
phases, red,
yellow, or
operation)
0.85 (S03) $1,409,040 $1,000 $333 $7,667 183.78
All
Update signal
heads to meet
current standards
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting,
size, and
number
0.85 (S02)$1,409,040 $12,000 $100 $12,000 117.42
All
Install signal ahead
signage
Install/
Upgrade signs
with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
0.85 (R22)$1,409,040 $2,000 $200 $6,000 234.84
Project Template: Location #4 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name: Monterey Ave &
Dinah Shore Dr
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Monterey Ave & Dinah Shore Dr
Examples of Similar Intersections: Cook St & Gerald Ford Dr; Gerald Ford Dr & Portola Rd
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 41,422
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signalized
Lighting All LED
Highest Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
Median On EB/NB approaches
Collision Data
Total Collisions 57
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 3
Visible Injury - 4
Top 3 Collision Types Rear-End (33%)
Broadside (26%)
Sideswipe (25%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 14
Wet Surface Collisions 3
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
54 2 1
♦♦
N
NN
Dinah
Shore Dr
MontereyAveAdditional Notes:
•Bicyclists noted this location is very busy during peak hours and high levels of speeding & aggressive driving
•The signal ahead signage should be activated when the signal is turning yellow or red.
•Caltrans needs to be involved in any changes on the bridge.
•Caltrans needs to revise the offset at the EB off ramp signal so that when it turns green for SB traffic on Monterey, the traffic will
arrive at the when the signal at Dinah Shore and Monterey is green.
•The southbound left turn lanes need to be reconstructed so that they are longer and this will require Caltrans concurrence
•The City of Rancho Mirage is in the process of improving the EB left turn lanes to provide more capacity.
•The coordination timing on Dinah Shore during the week should start earlier at 9 am.
•Consider adding a separate right turn lane and right turn overlap phase for the northbound approach on Monterey Avenue.
•Consider provide protected pedestrian phases across the free tight turn lanes to improve pedestrian safety.
Dinah
Shore Dr
MontereyAve
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
Pedestrian
Enhance crosswalk
visibility
Install
pedestrian
crossing (SI)
0.85 (S20PB)$182,460 $20,000 $3,333 $86,667 2.11
All
Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting,
size, and
number
0.85 (S02)$5,493,720 $10,000 $100 $12,000 457.81
All
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection system
Provide
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection for
high speed
approaches
0.60 (S04)$14,649,920 $30,000 $200 $34,000 430.88
All
Signal timing
improvements
Improve
signal timing
(coordination,
phases, red,
yellow, or
operation)
0.85 (S03)$5,493,720 $1,000 $333 $7,667 716.54
All
Update signal
heads to meet
current standards
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting,
size, and
number
0.85 (S02)$5,493,720 $10,000 $100 $12,000 457.81
All
Install ‘congestion
ahead’ signage
Install/
Upgrade signs
with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
0.85 (R22)$5,493,720 $2,000 $200 $6,000 915.62
Project Template: Location #5 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name: Highway 111 &
San Luis Rey Ave
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Highway 111 & San Luis Rey Ave
Examples of Similar Intersections: Highway 111 & El Paseo; Highway 111 & Hospitality Row
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 32,615
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signalized
Lighting All LED
Highest Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
Median On EB/WB approaches
Collision Data
Total Collisions 28
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 1
Severe Injury - 2
Visible Injury - 4
Top 3 Collision Types Rear-End (42%)
Broadside (24%)
Sideswipe (21%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 4
Wet Surface Collisions 1
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
28 4 1
♦♦
N
NN
Highway
111San Luis Rey AveAdditional Notes:
•NB and SB left turns on San Luis Rey Avenue are permissive. If they are still permissive, they should be made
protected if traffic signal maintenance staff and PD concur.
•Check the sight distance for vehicles turning right on red and if it is restricted, restrict this movement when the signal
indications are red.
•Consider adding right turn lanes with right turn overlap phases for the Hwy 111 approaches.
Highway
111 San Luis Rey Ave
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-
Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
Pedestrian
Enhance crosswalk
visibility
Install
pedestrian
crossing (SI)
0.85 $267,840 $20,000 $3,333 $86,667 3.09
All
Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
0.85 $914,040 $10,000 $100 $12,000 76.17
All
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection system
Provide
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection for
high speed
approaches
0.60 $2,437,440 $30,000 $200 $34,000 71.69
All
Adjust signal timing Improve
signal timing
(coordination,
phases, red,
yellow, or
operation)
0.85 $914,040 $1,000 $100 $7,667 119.22
Pedestrian
Install leading
pedestrian interval
(LPI)
Modify signal
phasing to
implement
a Leading
Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
0.40 $1,071,360 $1,000 $333 $7,667 139.74
Pedestrian
Pedestrian deterrent
along Highway 111
Install
pedestrian
median fencing
on approaches
0.65 $624,960 $50,000 $1,500 $80,000 7.81
All
Update signal
heads to meet
current standards
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
0.85 $914,040 $10,000 $100 $12,000 76.17
Project Template: Location #6 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name: Highway 111 & Plaza Way
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Highway 111 & Plaza Way
Examples of Similar Intersections: Highway 111 & El Paseo; Highway 111 & Desert Crossing
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 33,364
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signalized
Lighting On all signal mast
arms
Highest Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH
Median On EB/WB approaches
Collision Data
Total Collisions 26
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 2
Visible Injury - 4
Top 3 Collision Types Broadside (31%)
Rear-End (27%)
Hit Object (19%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 6
Wet Surface Collisions 1
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
23 3 0
♦♦
N
NN
Highway
111PlazaWay
Additional Notes:
•Signal synchronization project was recently completed at this location
•The NB and SB left turns on Plaza Way are permissive. They should be made protected if traffic signal maintenance
staff and PD concur.
•Check the sight distance for vehicles turning right on red and if it is restricted, restrict this movement when the signal
indications are red.
•Consider adding an EB right turn lane with right turn overlap phase for the Hwy 111 approach.
Highway
111 PlazaWay
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-
Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
Pedestrian
Enhance crosswalk
visibility
Install
pedestrian
crossing (SI)
0.85 (S20PB)$219,300 $20,000 $3,333 $86,667 2.53
All
Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
0.85 (S02)$683,040 $10,000 $100 $12,000 56.92
All
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection system
Provide
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection for
high speed
approaches
0.60 (S04)$1,821,440 $30,000 $200 $34,000 53.57
All
Adjust signal timing Improve
signal timing
(coordination,
phases, red,
yellow, or
operation)
0.85 (S03)$683,040 $1,000 $333 $7,667 89.09
Pedestrian
Install leading
pedestrian interval
(LPI)
Modify signal
phasing to
implement
a Leading
Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
0.40 (S21PB)$877,200 $1,000 $333 $7,667 114.41
Pedestrian
Straighten
crosswalk to reduce
crossing distances
Install
pedestrian
crossing (SI)
0.85 (S20PB)$219,300 $20,000 $3,333 $86,667 2.53
All
Update signal
heads to meet
current standards
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
0.85 (S02)$683,040 $10,000 $100 $12,000 56.92
Project Template: Location #7 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name: Highway 111 &
San Pablo Ave
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Highway 111 & San Pablo Ave
Examples of Similar Intersections: Highway 111 & Desert Crossing; Dinah Shore Dr & Miriam Way
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 25,000
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Signalized
Lighting On all signal mast
arms
Highest Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH
Median On SB, EB, and WB
approaches
Collision Data
Total Collisions 20
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 1
Visible Injury - 2
Top 3 Collision Types Rear-End (50%)
Sideswipe (20%)
Broadside (15%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 4
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
19 1 0
♦♦
N
NN
Highway
111San Pablo AveAdditional Notes:
•This intersection has been recently reconfigured. Therefore, there are not much data on the intersection since the
redesign.
•When CVAG implements its new signal synchronization on Hwy 111, this may reduce the collisions at this location if
smoother flow is provide through this intersection for EB and WB traffic.
•Consider adding a WB right turn lane with right turn overlap phase for the Hwy 111 approach and an EB right turn
overlap phase for the existing right turn lane for EB Hwy 111.
Highway
111 San Pablo Ave
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-
Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
Pedestrian
Enhance crosswalk
visibility
Install
pedestrian
crossing (SI)
0.85 (S20PB)$85,380 $20,000 $3,333 $86,667 0.99
All
Install retroreflective
backplates
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
0.85 (S02)$1,701,540 $10,000 $100 $12,000 141.80
All
Install advanced
dilemma zone
detection system
Provide
Advanced
Dilemma-Zone
Detection for
high speed
approaches
0.60 (S04)$4,537,440 $30,000 $200 $34,000 133.45
All
Install lane tracking
striping for EB LT (in
progress)
Install raised
pavement
markers
and striping
(Through
Intersection)
0.90 (S20PB)$1,134,360 $5,000 $833 $21,667 52.35
Pedestrian
Install leading
pedestrian interval
(LPI)
Modify signal
phasing to
implement
a Leading
Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
0.40 (S21PB)$6,806,160 $1,000 $333 $7,667 887.72
All
Update signal
heads to meet
current standards
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
0.85 (S02)$1,701,540 $10,000 $100 $12,000 141.80
Project Template: Location #8 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name:Fred Waring Dr & Acacia Dr
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Fred Waring Dr & Acacia Dr
Examples of Similar Intersections: Fred Waring Dr & Yellow Sage Dr; Frank Sinatra Dr & Rose Ridge Dr
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 30,825
Crosswalk Condition Not marked
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting On SE corner
Highest Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH
Median Raised median through
intersection for LT
movements
Collision Data
Total Collisions 16
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 2
Top 3 Collision Types
(percentage)
Broadside (88%)
Head-On (6%)
Sideswipe (6%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 1
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
16 0 0
♦♦
NNN
STOP
Fred Waring
Dr
Acacia DrAdditional Notes:
•The intersection is far too close to the Monterey and Fred Waring Drive intersection and its current configuration
restricts the length of the EB left turn lanes on Fred Waring Dr. at Monterey Avenue. This causes problems at both
intersections.
•Look at changing access to Acacia and other streets along Fred Waring Drive
Fred Waring
Dr
Acacia DrSTOP
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-
Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
All
Restrict U-turn on
LT movements
Create
directional
median
openings to
allow (and
restrict) left-
turns and
U-turns (S.I.)
0.50 (NS15)$1,888,000 $1,000 $100 $3,000 629.33
All
Intersection warning
signs for thru traffic
on Fred Waring
Install/Upgrade
signs with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
0.85 (R22)$566,400 $1,000 $100 $3,000 188.80
All
Yellow flashing
beacon over
intersection
Install flashing
beacons
as advance
warning (NS.I.)0.70 (NS09)$1,132,800 $4,000 $100 $6,000 188.80
All
Speed feedback
signs for eastbound
traffic
Install dynamic/
variable speed
warning signs 0.70 (R26)$1,132,800 $6,000 $500 $16,000 70.80
All
Perform gap
analysis to improve
signal timing
Improve signal
hardware:
lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective
borders,
mounting, size,
and number
0.15 (S03)$566,400 $1,000 $333 $7,667 73.88
Project Template: Location #9 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name: Highway 74 & Bursera Wy
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Highway 74 & Bursera Wy
Examples of Similar Intersections: Highway 74 & Indian Hills Way; Highway 74 & Cahuilla Wy
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 12,342
Crosswalk Condition None
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting On NE/SW corners
Highest Posted Speed Limit 55 MPH
Median None
Collision Data
Total Collisions 7
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 2
Visible Injury - 1
Top 3 Collision Types
(percentage)
Broadside (71%)
Hit Object (14%)
Sideswipe (14%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 2
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
5 0 2
♦♦
NNN
STOP
Bursera
Wy
Highway74Additional Notes:
•Full turning movements at the Highway 74 & Bursera Way is the reason for the high level of broadside collisions. The
median should be reconstructed on Hwy 74 to a full solid median that only allows right turn movements into and out
of the side street approaches.
Bursera
Wy
Bursera
Wy Highway74STOP
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
Pedestrian
& Bicycle
Install green bicycle
striping in conflict
zones
Install bike
lanes 0.65 (R32PB)$217,840 $10,000 $250 $15,000 21.78
All
Conduct signal
warrant analysis
Install signals
0.7 (NS03)$5,652,840 $257,500 $1,000 $277,750 20.37
All
Install caution
beacon (yellow N/S;
red E/W)
Install flashing
beacons
as advance
warning
(NS.I.)
0.7 (NS09)$5,652,840 $4,000 $100 $6,000 1884.28
All
Install speed
feedback signs
Install
dynamic/
variable speed
warning signs
0.7 (R26)$5,652,840 $12,000 $100 $32,000 176.65
Project Template: Location #10 (Intersection Project Type)
Project Name: Highway 74 & Larkspur Ln
Agency Name: Palm Desert
Contact Name: Randy Bowman
Email: rbowman@cityofpalmdesert.org
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by:
Date: February 2021
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: Highway 74 & Larkspur Ln
Examples of Similar Intersections: Highway 111 & Panorama Ln; Highway 111 & Sage Ln
Traffic and Geometric Data:
Traffic Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 32,614
Crosswalk Condition None
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Along Highway 111
Highest Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH
Median Raised along Hwy 111
Collision Data
Total Collisions 6
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 0
Top 3 Collision Types
(percentage)
Sideswipe (67%)
Rear-End (17%)
Broadside (17%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 2
Wet Surface Collisions 0
Drug and Alcohol Related
Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
6 0 0
♦♦
NNN
STOP
Larkspur LnAdditional Notes:
•The vegetation in the median should be reviewed to make sure it only grows to less than 36 inches so as to not
restrict sight distance for vehicles turning left from Hwy 74 onto Larkspur Lane.
•A right turn deceleration lane should be considered for the Hwy 74 approaches to the Larkspur Lane intersection.
•White channelizers should be installed along the while barrier line of the left turn lane on Hwy 74 to discourage illegal
maneuvers into and out of this turn lane.
Highway
74
Larkspur LnHighway
74
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues Recommendations
Potential
Counter-
measures
Crash
Modification
Factor
(LRSM/CMF
ID)
20 Year
Safety
Benefit
Initial
Installation
Costs
Per Year
Maitenance
Costs
Total
20-Year
Costs
Safety
Related
B/C
All
Install advanced
intersection signage
/ intersection
warning signage
Install/
Upgrade signs
with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
0.85 (R22)$129,000 $2,000 $200 $6,000 21.50
All
Install u-turn
restriction signage
Create
directional
median
openings to
allow (and
restrict) left-
turns and
U-turns (S.I.)
0.50 (NS15)$129,000 $1,000 $100 $3,000 43.00
PALM DESERT LRSP 2021
6262
Appendix B: Analysis Rankings Table –
Segments and Intersections
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Analysis Rankings – All Segments
Facility Limits Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet Other Principal Arterial
MONTEREY
AVENUE
DINAH SHORE DR - CITY
LIMITS 17 0.5563 62 0 0 1 7 9 1 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 1 2 2
MONTEREY
AVENUE
DINAH SHORE DR -
MARKETPLACE WAY 13 0.8289 62 0 0 3 4 6 0 2 8 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 2 0 0 0
MONTEREY
AVENUE HOVLEY DR W - VERBENIA RD 9 1.0322 19 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0
MONTEREY
AVENUE
COUNTRY CLUB DR -
SAGEWOOD DR 7 0.2000 12 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 1
MONTEREY
AVENUE
VERBENIA RD - CLANCY
LANE/AVENIDA DEL SOL 6 0.0505 11 0 0 0 1 5 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0
MONTEREY
AVENUE FRED WARING DR - HAHN RD 6
-
0.0121 11 0 0 0 1 5 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
WASHINGTON
STREET
TUCSON CIR - CALLE LAS
BRISAS 5 2.7022 15 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING
DRIVE
ENTRADA LAS BRISAS -
WASHINGTON ST 5 1.2239 15 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
MONTEREY
AVENUE
GERALD FORD DR- SHADOW
RIDGE RD 5
-
0.1397 15 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Facility Limits Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet COUNTRY CLUB
DRIVE EASTWOOD LN - HARRIS LN 5 2.0186 178 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 PLAZA WY - MONTEREY AVE 5
-
0.0316 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
HIGHWAY 111
PAINTERS PATH - FRED
WARING DR 5
-
0.0992 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING
DRIVE COOK ST - VIA DEL CHRISTO 4 2.1044 19 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
COOK STREET HOVLEY LN E - BELMONTE DR 4
-
0.1328 168 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
WASHINGTON
STREET 42ND AVE - WOODHAVEN DR 4 0.7823 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
MONTEREY
AVENUE
SHADOW RIDGE RD - FRANK
SINATRA DR 4
-
0.1982 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
FRED WARING
DRIVE
SAN PABLO AVE - CIVIC
CENTER PARK ENTRANCE 4
-
0.0694 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111
FRED WARING DR - DESERT
CROSSING 4
-
0.0882 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111
DESERT CROSSING - TOWN
CENTER WAY 4
-
0.1722 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
HIGHWAY 111
SAN LUIS REY AVE -
LARKSPUR LANE 4
-
0.1269 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING
DRIVE
PHYLLIS JACKSON LN - SAN
YSIDRO CIR 3
-
0.2185 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0
PORTOLA
AVENUE
CHAPARRAL DR -
QUICKSILVER DR 3
-
0.2528 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Facility Limits Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet COUNTRY CLUB
DRIVE
LIBERTY DR - PARK CENTER
DR 3 0.1168 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
COUNTRY CLUB
DRIVE
PARK CENTER DR -
EASTWOOD LN 3 1.1451 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
WASHINGTON
STREET
COUNTRY CLUB DR - HARRIS
LN 3 1.1931 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
COOK STREET
GERALD FORD DR -
UNIVERSITY PARK DR 3 0.2051 172 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
COOK STREET
GERALD FORD DR - CITY
LIMITS 3 0.4392 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0
FRED WARING
DRIVE
TOWN CENTER WAY -
FAIRHAVEN DR 3
-
0.1973 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING
DRIVE
SAN PASCUAL AVE -
PORTOLA AVE 3
-
0.2524 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111
SAN LUIS REY AVE - PALM
DESERT DR N 3
-
0.2127 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1
HIGHWAY 111
PORTOLA AVE - CABRILLO
AVE 3
-
0.2216 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
Minor Arterial
HOVLEY LANE E
IDAHO AVE - WASHINGTON
ST 16 3.3337 45 0 0 3 0 13 11 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
HOVLEY LANE E
CORPORATE WAY - ECLECTIC
ST 4 0.1920 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 74 HAYSTACK AVE - THRUSH RD 4 0.5303 168 0 1 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
HIGHWAY 74 EL PASEO - PITHAYA ST 3 0.1359 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Facility Limits Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet HOVLEY LANE E
ELDORADO DR - SAND DUNE
DR 3
-
0.1443 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Major Collector
TAMARISK ROW
DRIVE
FRANK SINATRA DR -
REGENCY WAY 5 0.8569 24 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0
FRED WARING
DRIVE
PAINTERS PATH - HIGHWAY
111 3 3.0643 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAGNESIA
FALLS DRIVE
SAN PABLO AVE - CIVIC
CENTER PARK ENTRANCE 3 0.1337 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Local
JONI DRIVE COOK ST - VELLE WAY 5 4.7557 15 0 0 0 2 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
4.Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210
Analysis Rankings – All Intersections Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet Signalized Intersections
MONTEREY AVENUE & FRED WARING DRIVE 62 0.0139 177 0 0 5 13 44 16 13 26 1 2 1 1 1 0 28 2 0 0 2
MONTEREY AVENUE & HIGHWAY 74 61 -0.0158 300 0 1 1 13 46 16 4 29 3 5 0 0 1 0 28 2 3 0 0
MONTEREY AVENUE & DINAH SHORE DRIVE 57 0.1260 688 0 3 4 20 30 15 14 19 2 2 1 0 2 1 28 1 0 0 3
HIGHWAY 111 & FRED WARING DRIVE 53 -0.0130 272 0 1 1 9 42 13 10 23 0 3 0 1 0 0 26 4 0 1 1
SAN PABLO AVENUE & FRED WARING DRIVE 53 0.2326 495 0 2 5 13 33 27 10 9 2 2 0 1 0 1 26 0 2 1 1
PORTOLA AVENUE & HIGHWAY 111 45 -0.1067 159 0 0 7 9 29 20 8 13 0 0 1 1 1 1 23 0 2 1 0
COOK STREET & COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 40 0.3963 104 0 0 4 5 31 9 5 21 0 3 0 0 0 0 20 5 0 0 0
PORTOLA AVENUE & COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 38 0.1738 118 0 0 3 10 25 13 7 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 4 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & HOSPITALITY ROW 36 -0.0535 131 0 0 3 13 20 1 5 26 0 3 0 1 0 0 28 3 0 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & DEEP CANYON ROAD 35 -0.1058 124 0 0 5 8 22 14 7 10 1 1 0 0 1 0 15 4 1 0 1
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & MONTEREY AVENUE 34 -0.0037 89 0 0 2 7 25 9 5 15 1 1 1 0 0 0 19 1 0 0 2
HIGHWAY 111 & SAN LUIS REY AVENUE
33 12.9958
609 1 2 4 9 17 8 7 14 0 1 0 0 4 1 19 1 1 1 1
TOWN CENTER WAY & EL PASEO 33 -0.1931 272 0 1 3 9 20 12 4 13 1 1 0 1 0 0 17 3 2 0 2
FRED WARING DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 32 -0.2564 102 0 0 3 8 21 16 2 11 0 1 0 2 0 1 15 2 0 0 1
DEEP CANYON ROAD & HIGHWAY 111 31 -0.1850 80 0 0 3 4 24 8 5 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 3 1 0 0
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & WASHINGTON STREET 31 1.4282 413 0 2 3 5 21 7 6 14 1 3 0 0 0 2 14 2 4 0 1
GERALD FORD DRIVE & COOK ST 31 0.5667 66 0 0 1 5 25 9 6 11 2 2 0 0 0 0 9 2 2 1 1
COOK STREET & HOVLEY LANE E 30 -0.2111 60 0 0 0 6 24 5 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 2 0 0
EL PASEO & HIGHWAY 74 29 -0.0988 226 0 1 2 3 22 4 2 16 1 4 0 0 1 0 15 1 3 1 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet FRED WARING DRIVE & COOK STREET 29 -0.1210 89 0 0 2 8 19 5 7 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 3 1 0 0
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & HARRIS LANE 29 1.6689 70 0 0 0 8 21 8 2 16 0 1 0 0 1 0 17 2 2 0 3
HIGHWAY 111 & PLAZA WAY 26 -0.2178 86 0 0 3 6 17 8 3 7 0 5 0 0 3 0 8 2 1 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & DESERT CROSSINGS DR 25 -0.2266 239 0 1 2 6 16 5 4 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 1 3 0 2
WASHINGTON STREET & HOVLEY LANE E 24 0.1805 69 0 0 1 7 16 10 5 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 7 1 2 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & SAN PABLO AVE 20 3.2462 213 0 1 2 2 15 3 4 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 0
HAHN ROAD & MONTEREY AVENUE 20 -0.2729 223 0 1 2 4 13 13 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 14 1 0 0 0
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & OASIS CLUB DRIVE 20 0.3575 35 0 0 1 1 18 7 3 7 1 0 0 2 0 0 10 1 0 0 1
PORTOLA AVENUE & GERALD FORD DRIVE 20 -0.0613 550 0 3 3 2 12 5 2 11 0 1 0 0 1 1 12 0 1 0 2
HIGHWAY 111 & PARK VIEW DRIVE 19 -0.3489 73 0 0 4 3 12 6 5 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 10 3 0 0 0
MONTEREY AVENUE & ALUMNI WAY 19 -0.2777 44 0 0 0 5 14 3 6 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 2 1 0 0
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE & COOK ST 19 -0.1453 64 0 0 2 5 12 6 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1
TOWN CENTER WAY & ONE QUAIL PLACE 18 -0.3575 63 0 0 2 5 11 5 3 7 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & DESERT WILLOW DRIVE 18 0.7045 48 0 0 1 4 13 4 0 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & CABRILLO AVENUE 17 5.9821 57 0 0 1 6 10 5 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 12 1 0 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & PHYLLIS JACKSON LANE 17 -0.3438 56 0 0 3 2 12 3 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 1
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & BARINGTON DRIVE 16 0.5291 71 0 0 2 7 7 1 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 1 0 0 0
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 16 -0.3344 65 0 0 3 4 9 5 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 1 0 0 0
MONTEREY AVENUE & MARKETPLACE WAY 15 0.1462 209 0 1 1 4 9 3 3 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 0
MONTEREY AVENUE & GERALD FORD DRIVE 14 0.1129 24 0 0 0 2 12 3 2 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 3 0 0
MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 13 -0.4052 53 0 0 2 4 7 2 1 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 2 0
SAN PABLO AVENUE & EL PASEO 12 0.5097 32 0 0 1 2 9 0 6 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet EL PASEO & PORTOLA AVENUE 12 -0.2992 32 0 0 1 2 9 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0
WASHINGTON STREET & AVENUE OF THE STATES 12 0.1785 205 0 1 3 0 8 3 0 6 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 1
HOVLEY LANE E & PORTOLA AVENUE 12 -0.4398 215 0 1 2 4 5 3 3 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 2 1 0 0
HOVLEY LANE W & MONTEREY AVENUE 12 -0.4137 22 0 0 0 2 10 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 0
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & ELDORADO DRIVE 12 -0.0965 374 0 2 3 1 6 3 2 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 0
FRED WARING DR & WASHINGTON ST 12 59.8315 27 0 0 0 3 9 1 3 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 2 1 0 0
EL PASEO & LARKSPUR LANE 11 0.5234 31 0 0 0 4 7 6 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 2
FRED WARING DRIVE & SAN PASCUAL AVE 11 1.2736 41 0 0 2 2 7 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0
WASHINGTON STREET & HARRIS LANE 11 0.0908 21 0 0 0 2 9 6 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
COUNTRY CLUB DR & LIBERTY DR 11 54.3521 41 0 0 2 2 7 1 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 0
FRED WARING DR & COLLEGE OF THE DESERT 10 -0.4705 199 0 1 1 3 5 1 2 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 0 1
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & VIA SCENA 10 0.0610 35 0 0 0 5 5 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 1
FRED WARING DRIVE & WARNER TRAIL 9 -0.0846 198 0 1 1 3 4 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0
AZTEC ROAD & COOK STREET 9 -0.4065 24 0 0 1 1 7 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 0
BEACON HILL & HOVLEY LANE E 9 -0.3951 44 0 0 1 5 3 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
PORTOLA AVENUE & DINAH SHORE DRIVE 9 -0.3573 28 0 0 2 0 7 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 0
EL PASEO & SAN LUIS REY AVENUE 8 -0.0520 13 0 0 0 1 7 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0
COOK STREET & 42ND AVE 8 -0.4034 43 0 0 2 3 3 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0
TECHNOLOGY DRIVE & TECHNOLOGY DRIVE 8 -0.3588 47 0 0 3 2 3 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0
DINAH SHORE DRIVE & DINAH SHORE DRIVE 8 -0.1050 18 0 0 0 2 6 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
DE ANZA WAY & PORTOLA AVE 7 5.9980 46 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
PORTOLA AVENUE & RUTLEDGE WAY 7 -0.5082 17 0 0 0 2 5 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet ELDORADO DRIVE & HOVLEY LANE E 7 -0.5054 12 0 0 0 1 6 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & PALM VALLEY DRIVE 7 -0.2432 17 0 0 0 2 5 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0
COOK STREET & UNIVERSITY PARK DR 7 -0.2893 12 0 0 0 1 6 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0
MONTEREY AVENUE & GRAN VIA 6 -0.5371 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
HOVLEY LANE E & WARNER TRAIL 6 -0.5290 21 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 1
AVENIDA DEL SOL & MONTEREY AVENUE 6 -0.5371 25 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
PORTOLA AVENUE & HOVLEY LANE W 6 -0.5422 180 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0
HIGHWAY 74 & SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE 5 -0.5421 40 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
TOWN CENTER WAY & HAHN ROAD 5 -0.5201 179 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & CALIFORNIA AVENUE 5 -0.3998 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
WASHINGTON STREET & MOUNTAIN VIEW 5 -0.4154 15 0 0 1 0 4 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 1
PORTOLA AVE & VIA VENEZIA 5 21.4754 15 0 0 0 2 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0
HOVLEY LANE E & CORPORATE WAY 5 -0.5446 174 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
DESERT FALLS PARKWAY & COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 5 -0.4258 10 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
COOK STREET & MERLE DRIVE 4 -0.5817 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
MONTEREY AVENUE & DICK KELLY DR 4 -0.2606 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
DINAH SHORE DRIVE & GATEWAY DRIVE 4 -0.5139 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
INDIAN RIDGE DRIVE & HOVLEY LANE E 3 -0.6113 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
OASIS CLUB DRIVE & HOVLEY LANE E 3 -0.6083 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
COLLEGE DRIVE & PORTOLA AVE 3 -0.1549 27 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
SHADOW RIDGE ROAD & MONTEREY AVE 3 1.0462 13 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
DICK KELLY DRIVE & GATEWAY DRIVE 3 -0.5393 8 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TONI WAY & DINAH SHORE DRIVE 3 -0.6032 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet Unsignalized Intersections
FRED WARING DRIVE & ACACIA DRIVE 16 0.1504 71 0 0 2 7 7 14 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EL PASEO & OCOTILLO DRIVE 13 2.1608 42 0 0 3 0 10 4 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 0
MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE & MONTEREY AVENUE 11 0.0893 55 0 0 4 1 6 3 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & LUPINE LANE 10 0.0351 25 0 0 1 1 8 1 2 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 2 0 1 0
FRED WARING DR & CIVIC CENTER PARK ENTRANCE 10 0.0473 25 0 0 0 3 7 1 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 0
PORTOLA AVENUE & FAIRWAY DRIVE 9 0.1499 29 0 0 1 2 6 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1
PORTOLA AVENUE & LARREA STREET 9 0.1696 28 0 0 2 0 7 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
YELLOW SAGE DRIVE & FRED WARING DRIVE 9 0.6097 58 0 0 3 4 2 3 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
WASHINGTON STREET & CALLE LAS BRISAS S 9 0.6436 34 0 0 1 3 5 2 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
COOK ST & FRANCONIA CT 9 8.7983 29 0 0 1 2 6 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0
EL PASEO & LUPINE LANE 8 0.8008 8 0 0 0 0 8 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0
SHADOW HILLS ROAD & HIGHWAY 111 8 0.0017 32 0 0 2 1 5 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0
HAHN ROAD & MONTEREY AVENUE 8 0.0209 182 1 0 0 2 5 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0
FRED WARING DR & FAIRHAVEN DRIVE 8 0.0082 23 0 0 1 1 6 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PRIMROSE DRIVE & FRED WARING DRIVE 8 0.0108 192 0 1 0 4 3 1 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 74 & BURSERA WAY 7 34.5448 354 0 2 1 2 2 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
SAGE LANE & HIGHWAY 111 7 -0.0149 26 0 0 2 0 5 2 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & TENNESSEE AVENUE 7 0.4416 27 0 0 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
MONTEREY AVENUE & ARBOLEDA AVENUE 7 0.0154 176 0 1 0 1 5 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0
HOVLEY LANE E & IDAHO ST 7 0.0424 27 0 0 0 4 3 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
HOVLEY LANE W & GLENWOOD LN 7 2.4975 17 0 0 0 2 5 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet HIGHWAY 111 & DE ANZA WAY 6 3.5838 26 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & LARKSPUR LANE 6 29.0654 16 0 0 0 2 4 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & SAN MARCOS AVE 6 3.5838 16 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & PALM DESERT DR N 6 3.5838 6 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
DESERT COUNTRY CIRCLE & COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 6 0.3238 170 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
COOK STREET & MARKETPLACE DR S 6 0.3447 16 0 0 0 2 4 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COOK STREET & MARKETPLACE DR N 6 0.3238 36 0 0 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PORTOLA AVENUE & GRAPEVINE STREET 5 0.0556 15 0 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 2 0
EL PASEO & PLAZA WAY 5 0.0801 20 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 0
SAGE LANE & EL PASEO 5 0.3898 10 0 0 0 1 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & PANORAMA DR 5 2.8532 25 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
HIGHWAY 111 & LAS PALMAS AVENUE 5 2.8532 25 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
SAN PABLO AVENUE & ALESSANDRO DRIVE 5 0.1996 29 0 0 2 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & SAN LUIS DRIVE 5 -0.0438 10 0 0 0 1 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & VIA DEL CHRISTO 5 0.2450 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0
VIA CINTA & HOVLEY LANE E 5 0.0188 183 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1
WASHINGTON STREET & WOODHAVEN LANE 5 0.2450 25 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
REGENCY WAY & COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 5 0.2450 20 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
COOK STREET & COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT ENTRANCE 5 0.2450 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 74 & PITAHAYA STREET 4 -0.0393 34 0 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
PALM DESERT DRIVE N & HIGHWAY 111 4 -0.0649 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
HIGHWAY 111 & HAHN ROAD 4 -0.0647 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EL PASEO & PAINTERS PATH 4 0.0255 14 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet PORTOLA AVENUE & ALESSANDRO DRIVE 4 -0.0462 23 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
DEEP CANYON ROAD & ALESSANDRO DRIVE 4 0.0235 28 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0
SAN PABLO AVENUE & GUADALUPE AVENUE 4 0.1332 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
SAN PABLO AVENUE & CATALINA WAY 4 0.1332 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PORTOLA AVENUE & RANCHO ROAD 4 -0.0432 14 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
WASHINGTON STREET & TUCSON CIRCLE 4 0.1454 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VELIE WAY & COOK STREET 4 -0.0564 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
42ND AVENUE & ECLECTIC STREET 4 0.2796 9 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
COOK STREET & RIVIERA DRIVE 4 -0.0560 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & SAGEWOOD LN 4 0.1590 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE & PLAZA DEL SOL 4 0.1454 19 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE & ELDORADO DRIVE 4 0.0127 177 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0
LEILANI WAY & DINAH SHORE DRIVE 4 0.1332 19 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
PALM DESERT DRIVE S & DEEP CANYON ROAD 3 0.2223 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SAGE LANE & PALM DESERT DRIVE S 3 0.2054 8 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
ALESSANDRO DRIVE & SANTA ANITA AVENUE 3 0.2910 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
SAN GORGONIO WAY & SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE 3 0.1737 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
SAN PASCUAL AVENUE & SANTA ROSA WAY 3 0.1158 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
SAN PABLO AVENUE & SANTA ROSA WAY 3 0.2793 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
ADONIS DRIVE & FRED WARING DRIVE 3 -0.0803 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & SAN YSIDRO CIRCLE 3 -0.0801 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
FRED WARING DRIVE & GOLETA AVE 3 -0.0803 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
COOK ST & SANTA FE TRAIL 3 -0.0777 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
kimley-horn.com 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 11, Indian Wells, CA 92210Intersection Collisions Local CCR Differential1 EPDO2 Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Broadside Sideswipe Rear End Head On Hit Object Overturned Other Pedestrian Bicycle Aggressive Distracted Impaired Dark Wet PARK VIEW DRIVE & ONE QUAIL PLACE 3 0.0093 22 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE & PALM DESERT MOBILE
ESTATES 3 -0.0099 18 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE & RUTLEDGE WAY 3 0.0336 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WARNER TRAIL & CALIFORNIA DRIVE 3 0.0641 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
JONI DRIVE & COOK STREET 3 -0.0775 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
WARNER TRAIL & MICHIGAN DRIVE 3 0.1158 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
CREST LAKE DRIVE & COOK STREET 3 0.0458 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Roundabout Intersections
SAN PABLO AVENUE & SAN GORGONIO WAY* 11 -0.2208 16 0 0 0 1 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 2 0 1 1
AVE OF THE STATES & CALIFORNIA DR/MICHIGAN DR 5 20.7944 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
DINAH SHORE & ATHENA POINT 4 15.3150 24 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0
SAN PABLO AVENUE & COLLEGE OF THE DESERT 2 -0.9826 7 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE & SAN PABLO AVENUE 2 -0.9354 166 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
COLLEGE DRIVE & PACIFIC AVE 2 -0.9843 12 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
2.Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
*Collision data was gathered before intersection was reconstructed as a roundabout.